The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by mikej327

It's funny, the Halloween Blu got rid of the blue tint and it looks more natural and people complained about it. FOTR has a new green tint and people are complaining because it doesn't look natural. Just proof that people love to complain. If anything, the Halloween Blu is considered more of a fix than a mistake.

You sound like you're just assuming that whoever complained about the Halloween Blu are the exact same people complaining about this one. Sorry, but the whole "people just want to complain" thing is kind of ignorant if you ask me.

[karlosfunkster]

Originally Posted by omicron

I've decided not to cancel. I don't see it as worth it. There is nothing wrong the TT and ROTK. While there may be an error with FOTR everyone says overall this is easily the best FOTR ever released. There may also NOT be an error. If there is an error it may or may not ever be corrected. If it is corrected WB may or may not issue a recall. If there is I recall it won't cost me anything to get it fixed. If not I'll end up buying a new BD of FOTR for $15 some time in the future.

Worst case, which I think is about 15% likely I'm out $15. It's not worth it for me to wait who knows how long (could be years) for the BD EE LOTR.

As far as comparing screen shots - one has to realize the human eye automatically corrects color balance to a great extent. Screenshot comparisons depress that autocorrection because there are two different color palettes in play. This is why differences that show as gross in screenshots may not be visible at all, or be quite minor when watching the movie.

As an example as to how powerful this auto correction is, last year I had cataract surgery which means now one of my eyes has a different color response than the other. When I took off my eye patch everything I saw through that eye looked far more blue than I was used to because of the new clear lens. Seeing through the other, natural eye made everything look MUCH more brown/green. The difference was far greater than in the screenshot comparisons. Within a short while my brain learned to apply it's own automatic color grading to the different images from each eye making everything look as usual again despite the significant differences between the light reaching each retina. So I am not at all concerned by an even tint applied to the whole movie making things look green in screenshot comparisons. I am NOT going to be watching the new and old films side by side.

Now criticism of the possible loss of contrast by applying the tint I can agree with. But I think that is likely to be a much more minor effect if all other things are equal. And all things are not equal.

If we really want to see the impact of the tint on the viewer what is needed is a comparison showing reduced contrast, lost detail, etc.

I wish I had put my posts together into one succint explanation like yours. I totally agree with all your points.

[karlosfunkster]

Originally Posted by mredman

Anyone seen this new post by Robert Harris over at hometheaterforum:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...0#post_3826048



Very interesting. Definitely agree with him

Seconded. His post backs up what almost everyone who has watched the blu ray has to say about it...

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by omicron

I've decided not to cancel. I don't see it as worth it. There is nothing wrong the TT and ROTK. While there may be an error with FOTR everyone says overall this is easily the best FOTR ever released. There may also NOT be an error. If there is an error it may or may not ever be corrected. If it is corrected WB may or may not issue a recall. If there is I recall it won't cost me anything to get it fixed. If not I'll end up buying a new BD of FOTR for $15 some time in the future.

Worst case, which I think is about 15% likely I'm out $15. It's not worth it for me to wait who knows how long (could be years) for the BD EE LOTR.

As far as comparing screen shots - one has to realize the human eye automatically corrects color balance to a great extent. Screenshot comparisons depress that autocorrection because there are two different color palettes in play. This is why differences that show as gross in screenshots may not be visible at all, or be quite minor when watching the movie.

As an example as to how powerful this auto correction is, last year I had cataract surgery which means now one of my eyes has a different color response than the other. When I took off my eye patch everything I saw through that eye looked far more blue than I was used to because of the new clear lens. Seeing through the other, natural eye made everything look MUCH more brown/green. The difference was far greater than in the screenshot comparisons. Within a short while my brain learned to apply it's own automatic color grading to the different images from each eye making everything look as usual again despite the significant differences between the light reaching each retina. So I am not at all concerned by an even tint applied to the whole movie making things look green in screenshot comparisons. I am NOT going to be watching the new and old films side by side.

Now criticism of the possible loss of contrast by applying the tint I can agree with. But I think that is likely to be a much more minor effect if all other things are equal. And all things are not equal.

If we really want to see the impact of the tint on the viewer what is needed is a comparison showing reduced contrast, lost detail, etc.

[karlosfunkster]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

This is not a matter of respect, as I have great respect for Mr. Brown's reviews. It is also not a problem with Mr. Brown.

My statement addressed numerous people, not necessarily even on this site, who have picked up on Mr. Brown's statement, which is opinion -- as my statements are opinion -- and are running with it around the web creating even more uncertainty than already exists, at a time when people need to get ahold of final product, see it for themselves, and find their own comfort levels.

As I read Mr. Brown's words, he feels that there is an overall change toward green, and that the change as viewed, takes greens further toward green, but also in much more minimal ways is apparent in other colors.

That has now been picked up and changed to "overall green," which does not reflect his review, and that was what I was addressing.

For the record, Mr. Brown and I exchanged PMs earlier in the week confirming that we were both viewing the same pressing.

I would not wish my words to be taken in any way as a negative toward someone that I respect.

RAH

This is a very fair comment. Those that own and have watched the disc will understand this.

[CrescentMoon]

I think statements like 'it looks much better in motion than on the screenshots', or 'your eyes will compensate anyway' or 'it looks awesome, PJ has nothing to address' are totally missing the point.
You may think that EE looks absolutely wonderful now - and I have no reason not to believe you, especially since I don't have the disks.
But I have a question: if it turns out, that the green tint is an error, will you exchange your copy to a corrected one?
If the answer is yes, then you should understand the point here completely.
If there is an error, it should be fixed, and the resulting image would look even better.

[karlosfunkster]

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

Because FoTR was the first film, without benefit of hindsight. It is a marginally older film than the others. It was shot a little differently, the production crew’s mindset was different (and sped up); but also, most importantly nobody had any idea that the film would succeed. Because of this, the post-production budget was very limited for Fellowship compared to the latter two films. It was only after the success of FoTR were Jackson and crew able to afford themselves a little more breathing room as the budget was incrementally increased from film to film. This, in fact, led to more polished productions, not necessitating the band-aids Jackson always felt the first film needed. Better production, better CG, more room for vision, etc.

Now that PJ has more work under his belt, after completing other films, and starting on the prequels, do you think these feelings he alluded to in interviews would have changed, or do you think they would have increased?

Again, right or wrong, 10 years later Jackson returns to only the first film (because only the first film had post-production problems, for the above reasons and more), and diddled in it. Again, if these greenie changes are intentional, who is to argue? And if they are not, then I will expect things to be rectified. Boldly rectified!

Even if these changes are not esthetically what I was looking for, I can much better swallow Jackson saying, “Hey, that’s it! I was finally able to nail the production value for FoTR,” rather than the silence. So, I feel you.

But also, again, and again, and again…There has been no reviewer, to date, who has said these changes in the color timing has adversely affected the viewing experience. We are still talking about high ratings, a sharper picture, and high detail all the way around. Just because it’s not what we’re used to does not make it bad.

If these changes were intentional, what it’s going to boil down to is each person rectifying these changes unto themselves.

This post should be highlighted to those who don't understand why only FOTR has been 'tinkered' with. Thanks for your comment.

[karlosfunkster]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoon

I think statements like 'it looks much better in motion than on the screenshots', or 'your eyes will compensate anyway' or 'it looks awesome, PJ has nothing to address' are totally missing the point.
You may think that EE looks absolutely wonderful now - and I have no reason not to believe you, especially since I don't have the disks.
But I have a question: if it turns out, that the green tint is an error, will you exchange your copy to a corrected one?
If the answer is yes, then you should understand the point here completely.
If there is an error, it should be fixed, and the resulting image would look even better.

Everyone would exchange if it's not intentional. But that's not a reason not to buy until a statement is made. Why? Because it looks wonderful. Right now we can ONLY assume it's intentional based on the evidence - the film, the regrade and the fact it plays beautifully.

[CRD13NYC]

Amazon status has changed to "shipping soon". Finally!
I have prime and expected delivery is release day. Here's hoping...

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

We are still talking about high ratings, a sharper picture, and high detail all the way around. Just because it’s not what we’re used to does not make it bad.

Well...I know one thing for sure >>>
I will NEVER get used to massive loss of shadow detail because of
underexposure:

YouTube - ‪Lord of the Rings Blu-Ray EE Sample‬‏

[karlosfunkster]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Well...I know one thing for sure >>>
I will NEVER get used to massive loss of shadow detail because of
underexposure:

YouTube - ‪Lord of the Rings Blu-Ray EE Sample‬‏

I'm sure someone must have already said this, but why use YOUTUBE as a guide? It's not reliable, it doesn't look like my bluray, so just wait and don't comment until you see the actual disc?

[kristoffer]

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

Is that you Thom Yorke?

He he!

[lkmg]

Originally Posted by CRD13NYC

Amazon status has changed to "shipping soon". Finally!
I have prime and expected delivery is release day. Here's hoping...

Mine is "shipping soon" too! But not prime though...

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by karlosfunkster

I'm sure someone must have already said this, but why use YOUTUBE as a guide? It's not reliable, it doesn't look like my bluray, so just wait and don't comment until you see the actual disc?

Well...the blu-ray.com Shire screenshots have the same underexposure.
>>>

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

As I read Mr. Brown's words, he feels that there is an overall change toward green, and that the change as viewed, takes greens further toward green, but also in much more minimal ways is apparent in other colors.

That has now been picked up and changed to "overall green," which does not reflect his review, and that was what I was addressing.

You mean people like this, who may not have even seen the discs yet?

Originally Posted by PGW

The whole friggin' disc is tinted PUKE GREEN! It's UNWATCHABLE. So what DIFFERENCE does ANYTHING else make? Is it sharper? Sure! Who cares? IT'S PUKE GREEN!!!!

[goresnet]

Originally Posted by lkmg

Mine is "shipping soon" too! But not prime though...

Mine has shipped! Got my email at 12:31am from Amazon. I am a prime member.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoon

I think statements like 'it looks much better in motion than on the screenshots', or 'your eyes will compensate anyway' or 'it looks awesome, PJ has nothing to address' are totally missing the point.
You may think that EE looks absolutely wonderful now - and I have no reason not to believe you, especially since I don't have the disks.
But I have a question: if it turns out, that the green tint is an error, will you exchange your copy to a corrected one?
If the answer is yes, then you should understand the point here completely.
If there is an error, it should be fixed, and the resulting image would look even better.

Exactly. As good as it may or may not look right now, it would look even better without a green tint applied to the whole film. Hope we get the chance to find out via a replacement.

[karlosfunkster]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Well...the blu-ray.com Shire screenshots have the same underexposure.
>>>

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

OK, cool. This screen has already been commented on, as dusk rather than the brighter daylight, and this has also been reasonably account for in some of the posts above that I have commended.

I would still view it in 'context' and wait until you have seen the whole film on Blu Ray.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by 42041

To repeat something I said hundreds of pages ago in this thread: one might think that wearing orange-tinted snowboard goggles would horribly obnoxious. But in fact, you don't notice anything amiss after a very short time, and snow looks very much white. After you take them off, it's painfully blue/green for a few moments. The brain's capacity to adjust to these things is quite remarkable.

This is worth reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/20...constancy.html

I am a boarder myself and understand what you are saying, but when it comes to movie watching I would cetainly never choose a global tint to a film that never had it for 10 years prior. Your eyes getting used to the tint is an excuse which we should not have to make and things would no doubt look better with the goggles off so to speak. We should not have to "adapt" to what certainly looks to be an error from most signs at this point.

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by mg428

When I save the two images to my local drive and zoom in, Saruman's beard for example or other details in his face are more refined, to my eye. You may try the same thing.

As to 1080i, I know that broadcast HD is max. 1080i, and in fact that's precisely the very reason of my question: How come the non-full HD HDTV version is sharper and contains more detail than the EE blu-ray in 1080p??

I don't want to be perceived by the forumites as pixel-peeper or something but if the HDTV is really more refined, then I would like to know how come the lower-res HDTV version is sharper and contains more detail than both the TE and EE?

Hey mg428,

I would tend to think that the reason the HDTV broadcast looks better than the TE blu-ray is because HDTV didn't use DNR, or at least nowhere near as much as the TE blu-ray.

When it comes to the HDTV broadcast looking more detailed than the EE blu-ray, my guess is that it's entirely because of the green tint, which is washing out a lot of the fine detail in the image. As I believe has already been pointed out by someone else, the green tint, which it has been confirmed is measurably present throughout the film, is always interacting with and altering the other colors on the screen with the persistence and, at times, the intensity with which Sauron bent his will towards finding the one ring. And that makes sense, since both Sauron and the green tint are evil

In the case of this scene with Saruman, you have an image that is already trending, intentionally, toward a blue palette. However, with the green tint applied over top of the scene, you have yet another color manipulating the image in an unbalanced way, pushing it toward a teal/aqua color and muting some of the detail.

Even with the regraded version done by a user here (I forget his name at the moment) using an adjusted white-point, it seems unlikely to me that he'd be able to regain the full detail of the new HD master, since he's starting out with an image that may already have some information loss.

Take care,
HeKS